Superior Court of Connecticut

Case no.: DBD-CV25-6054975-S
Date filed: February 17, 2026

A Connecticut court has ruled that an inadvertent reference to unacceptable specifications did not necessitate a re-bid. The municipality’s flawed procurement practices did not warrant judicial intervention.

The Town of Newtown requested proposals for a dehumidification system for its community center, which housed an indoor swimming pool. The town retained Marchetti Engineering to design the system, and Marchetti in turn contracted a self-employed mechanical engineer, Allen Adriani.

The specifications contemplated an evaporator coil dehumidification unit manufactured by Dectron. Adriani later testified he had also considered a compressor wall technology unit manufactured by Seresco but concluded that unit would be insufficient. He neglected, however, to remove all references to the compressor wall technology from the specifications.

The solicitation stated that the town reserved the right to reject any or all bids and to waive defects in the bids. The contract was to be awarded to “the lowest responsible bidder,” defined as the proposal deemed to be in the best interests of the town. The solicitation also allowed bidders to take express exceptions to the specifications.

All State Construction Inc. submitted the low bid, which it had built based on the use of the less expensive Seresco compressor wall technology. All State indicated it was taking no exceptions to the specifications. Pavarini Northeast Construction Co. LLC submitted the second low bid, which it priced using the Dectron evaporator coil unit. The Town Purchasing Authority said All State’s failure to indicate it was taking an exception to the specs made them uncomfortable and caused them to question the bidder’s integrity. The Purchasing Authority announced award of the contract to Pavarini.

All State Construction challenged the town’s decision in court and demanded a re-bid. All State argued that despite the boilerplate language in the solicitation, the town did not have the right to arbitrarily reject a significantly lower bid. All State said in its experience, taking an exception to the specifications would disqualify a bidder. And, the specs did in fact include references to the compressor wall technology.

The Superior Court of Connecticut agreed that the town did not have unfettered discretion to reject a low bid. “This court agrees with All State’s argument that Newtown’s invocation of its right to reject any and all bids … cannot become an absolute cover under which a municipality can blanket its power to do as it pleases.”

The court rejected All State’s argument that an exception to the specifications would have resulted in automatic disqualification of its bid. The solicitation expressly authorized exceptions, which would have led to discussions with the bidder. The court essentially said it would not second guess the town, regardless of the flaws in the town’s procurement process.

“All State’s challenge to Newtown’s decision to award the project to Pavarini has raised legitimate issues meriting serious consideration. It is not a frivolous application. Newtown’s process was not perfect. Perfection is not, however, the standard.”

“If the door of the courthouse is too easily opened to judicial review of municipal bidding decisions, disgruntled bidders shall flood the docket and public projects will be delayed. This court concludes Newtown has proven compliance with the letter and spirit of the public interests protected by bidding rules.”

Ambiguous specifications plus the right to take exception to the specs and trigger discussions is a recipe for misunderstanding and disputes.

All State, prior to bid submittal, should have protested the ambiguity in the specifications and determined whether this was a proprietary specification for the Dectron product.

Participants: No attorneys of record listed

Before: Judge Medina

Opinion by: Judge Medina

Outcome: Bid protest dismissed

Source: Please click here to read the complete opinion.